A place to share photographs and pictures. Feel free to post your own, but please read the rules first (see below), and note that we are not a catch-all for general images (of screenshots, comics, etc.)

No screenshots or pictures of screens. No pictures with added/superimposed text.This includes image macros, comics, maps, infographics, and most diagrams. Text (e.g. a URL) serving to credit the original author is exempt.

No porn or gore.NSFW content must be tagged.

No personal information.This includes anything hosted on Facebook's servers, as they can be traced to the original account holder. Stalking & harassment will not be tolerated.No missing-persons requests!

Submissions must link directly to a specific image file or to a website with minimal ads.We do not allow blog hosting of images ("blogspam"), but links to albums on image hosting websites are okay. URL shorteners are prohibited. URLs in image or album descriptions are prohibited.

We enforce a standard of common decency and civility here. Please be respectful to others. Personal attacks, bigotry, fighting words, otherwise inappropriate behavior or content, comments that insult or demean a specific user or group of users will be removed. Regular or egregious violations will result in a ban.

If your submission appears to be filtered, but definitely meets the above rules, please send us a message with a link to the comments section of your post (not a direct link to the image). Don't delete it as that just makes the filter hate you!

If you come across any rule violations please report the submission or message the mods and one of us will remove it!

Serial reposters may be filtered. False claims of ownership will result in a ban.

Professional photographer or artist? Read these guidelines for linking to your own site and obtaining 'Verified' user flair.

Links

If your post doesn't meet the above rules, consider submitting it on one of these other subreddits:

Especially the Coke? They actually overstated how much sugar was in there. The 12 ounce can should be 9.75 teaspoons (39 grams) and the 20 ounce bottle should be 16.25 teaspoons (65 grams). Not sure about the others...

I don't think so, because if you buy a Big Gulp you're gonna drink it, not just drink a can sized amount, similarly, if you buy a can of drink you aren't going to drink a Big Gulp sized amount of liquid.

I'm still waiting for someone to come out with a fountain that, along with dispensing the drink, has ice cubes made of frozen whatever-drink-you're-getting. That way, as it melts, you just get more of the good stuff.

The reason ice keeps beverages cool isn’t primarily because ice is cold. It’s because it takes a lot of energy to make 0°C ice into 0°C liquid water.

Per cubic centimetre, it takes about 470 joules to take ice from freezer‐temperature liquid water to room temperature (25°C). For soap stone, that number is a mere 120.

If your freezer isn’t as cold as mine or you have higher standards for palatability than “somewhat under room temperature”, those numbers are far worse. If you demand your beverage to be ice‐cold (i.e. 0°C), the ice will still absorb 370 J, but the soap stone is only effective at absorbing 45 J before the beverage warms unacceptably.

A big Gulp is the name of a cup you get from a corner store or gas station usually over 32 oz. and reaching upwards of 64 oz. It depends on where you go, I believe a big gulp is strictly from the store 7-11, however many other stores mimick this and have something equivalent.

I am not certain, but from the amount of sugar in each bag, it would appear that they have been labelled as x number of tsp, but they have used a tbsp to measure out the sugar. I have seen this mistake before in a kindergarten class doing the same comparisons.

They really needed to use consistent containers, too. It looks in the picture like the can and bottle of soda have the same amount of sugar, but the can is only a little over half the size. It's labelled correctly, but the bags squash the sugar so that the small one looks like more.

Actually, because corn syrup is glucose, any fructose added to it makes it HIGH fructose. Also, there are two different formulations of HFCS that are used. HFCS42, which is 42% frustose and 58% glucose(and contains LESS fructose than cane sugar) and HFCS55, which is 55% fructose and 45% glucose.

it's not really a better or worse kind of thing, generally your body turns glucose into energy well if you take in fructose instead you use different enzymes for the first couple steps in the process but then glycolysis and fructolysis are the same.

If you agree with the hypothesis of Dr. Robert Lustig, fructose is MUCH worse for you than glucose.

And while I've heard some people argue against Dr. Lustig's vilification of fructose, I've never seen anyone dispute his actual biochemistry presented in "Sugar: The Bitter Truth". In my opinion, if you can't argue against his biochemistry, then there's not a lot of room to move if you want to say his conclusions are false.

It isn't, actually. It is called High Fructose Corn Syrup because it has more fructose than regular corn syrup, not because it has an abnormally high concentration of fructose for a sugar. It is generally 25% water and 75% sugar.

The HFSC used in beverages is generally HFCS 55, which is 55% fructose. The HFCS used in baked goods and snacks is usually HFCS 42 which is only 42% fructose.

Sucrose (cane sugar) is 50% fructose. But, since it is a disaccharide, the fructose and glucose are bonded into single molecules.

Honey is 70% fructose, with the glucose crystals floating in a sea of fructose. Honey is super saturated and contains almost no water. So, a serving of honey contains 33% more sugar than an equal size serving of HFCS.

Agave nectar ranges from 56% fructose to 92% fructose.

Fructose is just far sweeter than glucose. So, all popular sweeteners will have at least a 50% mix of fructose.

Sweeteners like maple syrup, molasses, treacle and sucanat are all higher in glucose than in fructose. They generally have a strong flavour, are less sweet and contain actual nutrients. But, the flavours can be off-putting in many applications. Not everyone wants their soda to me maple flavour or their sugar cookies to taste more like molasses.

There is no real science that shows that HFCS is any different than "real" sugar. The only thing is statistical correlations, which the more logical belief that the medical professionals are thinking has to do with how much more sugar is in things... not that its HFCS.

Fructose is a monosaccharide opposed to sucrose's or lactose's disaccharide (sucrose is a glucose and a fructose together, essentially. In the same way, lactose is galactose and glucose). They have the same caloric energy content by weight, but no digestion is necessary for the fructose.

Your body needs to break down diasaccharides into monosaccharides in your body before they can be digested.

There's a lot of theories on what this means. The simplest difference this might imply is that the net caloric content you gain from a disaccharide is lower since you must invest energy in digesting it. There are also probably other effects at play - for example, the slower speed of absorbing sucrose could have a psychological effect on how much of it you consume (maybe your gut tells your body "enough" sooner, since it can't process the stuff as fast).

It's hard to say for sure. Human digestion is very hard to understand. And it's not like fructose is "unnatural", the way so many people claim it is. Fructose is a naturally-occurring sugar that has been part of the human diet for a very long time in forms like honey, berries, melons, and many other sweet fruits and flowers. I wouldn't recommend avoiding it just because it's a buzz word, but I'm not a dietitian either. If you are going to eat sugar, better to get it from sources that are loaded with other healthsome benefits like fruit, vegetables, milk, or the like, rather than getting it as part of a source that just exists as a sugar vessel.

Now if you don't mind, I'm going to go eat a candy bar because it's delicious.

I work in a grocery store in the dairy department. I have an older gentlemen that always asks "WHy do they put SUGAR in milk! Something strange is going on, I need to call them!". I tell him that lactose is a naturally occurring sweetener. Even in "Lactose free" milk, there is still Lactose in it I think, but the Lactase enzyme coats it, preventing it from being absorbed by the body.

Lactase is an enzyme that literally helps to break lactose down into two different compounds, glucose and galactose. It's what actually allows your body to use the lactose. Without the lactase, your body won't cleave lactose into those simple sugars, and you're left with lactose chilling in your intestines, feeding bacteria. The breaking down of lactose into two simple sugars is also why lactose-free milk tastes nothing like regular milk... it's sweeter because those sugars are already broken down.

They are actually digested roughly the same way, early in the small intestines by their constitutive enzymes, and the metabolic pathways for galactose and fructose are very similar. So they are equally "bad" or "good" for you.

So the 250ml carton should have around 12 grams of sugar in the form of lactose. The 355ml can of coke has 39g of high fructose corn syrup. It also doesn't really have much in the terms of nutrition (other than the very high energy content), whereas the milk is absolutely jam-packed with all kinds of nutrients - there really isn't a single food source as nutritionally complete as milk.

I do hear a lot of kerfuffle from you crazy yanks about things like bovine growth hormones and antibiotics, but I really couldn't say what risk these things pose and how much actually end up in the milk. The FDA has decided that they're safe enough for human consumption, but equally, the EU has banned the use of growth hormones in dairy cows.

Bovine growth hormone does not appear to be harmful to humans, science simply has not shown this. It is however banned in some countries because it's harmful to the ANIMAL, who face a statistically significant increase in various afflictions if injected with bST. Also monsanto notably bribed some countries (canada) in an attempt to get bSTs approval pushed through faster, although canada banned it due to harm to animals anyways.

Couldn't speak about antibiotics health effects. Where I live, if antibiotics are detected in milk, milk cannot be sold, so there is some minor concern of some antibiotics slipping through the cracks. Probably the greater problem with animal antibiotic use is antibiotic resistance, more antibiotics are used on healthy animals then sick people.

TL:DR - AFAIK, BGH/antibiotics don't affect the health value of milk. They should be banned or have their usage reduced for other reasons however.

Milk exists to nourish baby cows, not to provide "healthy food" for humans. (No, I am not objecting to our consuming cow's milk, I'm just pointing out why cows bother to make milk.) Baby cows are growing rapidly and playing a lot, so they need carbs (which includes sugars) to burn for energy.

Either the bags are really slim, making it look like there is more sugar than there really is, or this person confused a tablespoon with a teaspoon. I'm not saying there isn't a shit ton of sugar in these drinks, but that amount of sugar in those pictures is not in teaspoon measurements unless the bags are really thin. The kid mixed up tablespoons and teaspoons and basically doubled the measurements is my guess.

Your body either uses it for energy or it gets stored as fat. The problem with liquids is it takes your body less time and energy to break down liquid calories so it is available faster and in more quantity than if you ate the food calories.

I stopped drinking sodas (dr pepper mostly) and in 2 months I lost 3 belt sizes.

I'm concerned a little bit because I am a sugar junkie. I eat cookies almost every night, I drink soda at work (approx 64oz), but not at home. I love donuts and sweet tarts as well. I guess what I am saying is that I have a pretty strong sweet tooth, but I only weigh 150lbs with a 32" waist size. Is this going to bite me in the ass?

Obesity, genetics, lack of exercise, stess, diet, and lack of sleep are all thought to be factors in developing type 2 diabetes. However, studies have not found a direct link between sugar consumption and type 2 diabetes.

Or he doesn't eat much of anything else. You can calculate the calories, resting metabolic rate, and level of exercise. If it's lower than the number of calories he brings in, he'll be fine. He can still develop diabetes, but he won't be overweight.

Schedule a checkup with your doctor. You should be going for full physicals at least once a year your age. Make sure to check cholesterol and blood pressure as well as sugar levels. These are a few things that can be absolutely awful, but you would never notice. Heart disease is the biggest killer because it's so "silent" in this aspect. Someone who looks/feels perfectly healthy and isn't fat at all can have an awful cardiovascular system and die at the age of 40.

However, if you're eating well in all other aspects and you have an active lifestyle, this stuff may not be an issue for you as its possible you're burning it all off anyway.

I don't know how sugar affects cholesterol, but I would like to mention that my mum is skinny as fuck, often considered underweight, and she had a stroke because she ate so much shitty food that her cholesterol was sky high and no one realised because she wasn't on the larger side.

Sounds like you're active enough to metabolize that much sugar instead of storing it as fat, but in order to metabolize it your body still has to produce enough insulin. So you're probably at a higher risk for Diabetes than you might otherwise be, but I wouldn't know how much higher. Stored body fat has been demonstrated to play a role in insulin resistance, so you're almost certainly better off than if you weren't active enough to burn all those calories.

I'm not a doctor and even if I were I wouldn't give you medical advice over the internet, but it doesn't sound like you have a real problem to me. Of course, if you're like me, once you turn 30 you're going to have to either cut back or work a lot harder to keep weight off. I can't eat the same diet now that I could at 20.

Yes. Most certainly. Weight isn't always a good indicator of health. You can be 50 pounds overweight and have basically perfect health (normal cholesterol, triglycerides, blood sugar) and you can be your target weight and have horrible health.

You're not 'lucky for now' just because you're not fat. Eventually with this amount of sugar you're almost guaranteed diabetes. (Basically the same way smoking almost always leads to cancer or lung diseases, but not 100% ALWAYS). And diabetes may not seem bad, but even if you're super vigilant it messes up your blood vessels and you'll have strokey/cardiac arresty problems in your later years . You don't want to mess with that shit. Start by cutting out that soda, at least switch to diet. I'm certainly no health nut but I've seen the side effects and I know you don't want it.

essentially your body uses carbohydrates to make ATP (your body's version of gas). you basically have 2 different types of carbs: Starch and sugar. starch is a bunch of sugar bound up into a long chain. in order to use the starch, it has to be broken down into the most basic type of sugar, glucose.

breaking down starch uses a lot of energy, so you get less energy from eating starch rather than sugar, which is bad if you live in Africa. since we aren't starving and most likely aren't burning a lot of energy, we store this energy in a carbohydrate called glycogen which is bad if you aren't going to use it.

Essentially every sugar and starch is made of glucose. fructose is 2 glucose molecules joined together, and the other sugars (maltose, galactose, ect) make continually longer and longer strings. these strings have to always be broken down to glucose to be used, so more links=more cutting, more cutting=more energy used.

Cellulose (the stuff fiber and cotton are made of) is just a fucked up starch which has the links in a formation that can't be broken down into glucose by human bodies.

Consuming large amounts of sugar also causes an inflammatory response in the body. There is evidence that this sort of inflammation is a factor in the cause of diseases like alzheimers, diabeties, arthritis, heart disease, etc.

It's okay in moderation, like most things, but if you're constantly dumping it into your body it's not good.

That's because whoever did this experiment confused teaspoons with tablespoons. There is not that much sugar in these drinks. They used Tbsp. when they should have used tsp. Look at the can of soda, for example. If you were to pour that sugar into the can in would account for more than half of the contents. For those that don't believe me, go and grab a teaspoon to see how small it really is, then compare that to a tablespoon.

Here guys. I have a story:
So there was this really fat kid in high school. He smelled gross, slept in the office during class transitions, and always carried around a couple newly popped bags of butter popcorn.
One day, he was running up and down the halls so frantically that everyone was getting a bit nervous. We had never seen him move so fast or show us the tiniest bit of an exercise regimen, so we figured something was terribly wrong.
He runs up to a table across from us where all the jocks are sitting and yells "DO YOU HAVE A CAR!? PLEASE PLEASE DO YOU HAVE A CAR?" They tell him no they don't and he moves on. He eventually comes to our table (my friend actually did drive at the time) and pleads again "DO YOU HAVE A CAR!? PLEASE! I NEED SOMEONE TO DRIVE ME!" So my friend asks, in a concerned voice "Why? What's wrong?" and he says, I shit you not, "I need to get to 7Eleven! I get a free refill on my Super Big Gulp, but class is almost starting!"

Isn't this scientifically the wrong amount of sugar? Isn't sugar in liquids measured not by grams but my liquid grams or something? So this project makes it seem there is more sugar in these drinks than there actually is?